For Congress, a New Vigilance in Policing Ethics

WASHINGTON — In the bazaar that is Capitol Hill, there is nothing surprising about lawmakers’ doing favors for campaign donors or intervening with federal agencies on behalf of constituents or friends.

So why are Representatives Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat, and Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, facing the rare spectacle of public ethics trials for actions their defenders say are just business as usual in Congress?

The charges reflect, in part, a heightened sensitivity in Washington to indiscretions by members of Congress. The House ethics committee, which has brought the charges, has come under fire for failing to hold lawmakers accountable in previous investigations.

Both cases also involve personal causes — for Ms. Waters, the financial investments of her husband, and for Mr. Rangel, an education center set up in his name in New York. With their integrity under attack after widespread news reports, Mr. Rangel and Ms. Waters are fighting the charges instead of simply accepting a modest punishment.

As a result, Washington has suddenly become fixated on ethics issues, including the continuing investigation of Senator John Ensign, a Republican from Nevada, who has been accused of improperly intervening with federal regulators at the request of a former aide, whose wife had an affair with the senator.

“This wave of activity will remind members and staff that this is an era of more vigilance and scrutiny and they need to be much more careful about what they do,” said Abbe D. Lowell, a Washington defense lawyer who has handled a number of ethics inquiries. “The public’s low esteem for Congress and the appearance of inappropriate conduct in general have to be confronted and dealt with.”

Ms. Waters on Monday became the second lawmaker in two weeks to face formal ethics charges, as the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced it was creating a new panel to hold a trial to determine if she took improper steps on behalf of a bank in which her husband owns stock.

Her case illustrates the conflict between lawmakers and the ethics committee over whether her actions represent a widely accepted norm or an egregious violation of the ethics rules.

She is accused of improperly calling Henry M. Paulson Jr., then the Treasury secretary, to set up a meeting in late 2008 on behalf of minority bankers pushing for a federal bailout. That group included executives from the bank her husband invested in.

“I simply will not be forced to admit to something I did not do,” Ms. Waters said in a statement on Monday. “The case against me has no merit,” she added.

The accusations against all three lawmakers hang in large part on the question of whether the actions they took came in the course of their normal professional duties or constituted personal favors that may have been influenced, or at least appeared to have been influenced, by money or other factors.

In their defense, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Waters and Mr. Ensign rely on similar arguments: The people and industries they helped were constituents they had always helped in the past, regardless of any other political, personal or financial ties.

Mr. Ensign contended, for instance, that he had always been a supporter of a Nevada airline, Allegiant Air, and an electric utility, NV Energy. Investigators are examining whether he may have tried to hush up the affair by inappropriately helping his mistress’s husband lobby federal agencies on behalf of those companies.

Mr. Rangel’s lawyers said his charitable work raising money with City College of New York to start an educational center named after him there reflected his long commitment to the college, four blocks from where he grew up.

Mr. Rangel’s lawyers, in a 32-page rebuttal to the charges, said a number of other prominent lawmakers including Senator Mitch McConnell, and former Senators Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and Robert C. Byrd raised money for their own favorite university causes while they were in office.

Mr. McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, has helped raise money from corporate donors, including RJR Nabisco, Toyota and military defense contractors, for a center named after him at the University of Louisville, Mr. Rangel’s lawyers point out.

“We provide these examples not as part of an “everyone does it” defense, but rather to demonstrate that these activities have never been regarded as creating an improper benefit to a member,” Mr. Rangel’s lawyers wrote.

The House ethics panel that investigated his case disagreed.

The committee said that not only did he appeal for contributions from companies like Verizon, New York Life Insurance and American International Group, which all had major legislative matters before his committee, but he also made those appeals on official House stationery, with the help of his House aides.

And there was an unusually close overlap, the committee contended, between appeals for donations and his intervention on legislative matters, citing in particular a meeting Mr. Rangel held in 2007 at a New York hotel with an executive from an oil drilling company at which he made a bid for a donation and also discussed a tax break the company was seeking.

The executive, Eugene Isenberg, and his company ended up making a $1 million contribution to the educational center, and Mr. Rangel helped the company secure a tax break worth an estimated $500 million.

“Reasonable persons could construe contributions to the Rangel Center by persons with interest before the Ways and Means Committee as influencing the performance of respondent’s government duties,” said the complaint against Mr. Rangel, who was the committee’s chairman.

Mr. Rangel’s lawyers acknowledge that he probably should have checked in advance with the House ethics staff about the City College arrangement, but contended that “the congressman did not abuse his official position or enrich himself financially.”

Robert K. Kelner, an ethics lawyer in Washington who is involved in Senator Ensign’s case, called the charges against Mr. Rangel and Ms. Waters perhaps overblown.

“This is the committee’s way of showing that it is alive and well, notwithstanding the criticism directed at it,” Mr. Kelner said. “Here’s an opportunity where we can bare our teeth.”

Whatever the explanation, lawmakers in Washington are noticing the crackdown, their lawyers said.

“There is definitely a heightened concern and sensitivity about political and charitable contributions and the timing in relation to official actions,” said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics defense lawyer. “It’s a big issue out there right now, and these are very rough waters to navigate.”

A version of this news analysis appears in print on August 3, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: A Capital Abuzz With Ethics. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe